1. I put The Last of the Mohicans on the reading list for several reasons:
to have us compare this text to others to ascertain why it retained its
popularity when other texts equally popular when published "lost"
their audiences (given the many editions some of the other texts we have
read, is that "loss" real or apparent?), to compare Cooper's
treatment of historical incidents to other treatments either claimed to
be or obviously are based on historical events, to see how the women in
Cooper's text are portrayed in comparison to the female writers' presentations
of women, and so on. So sometime during the discussion I'd like us to address
these more global questions of comparison.

2. Hawkeye espouses his "philosophy" a great deal in this
text. He opines on justice, heaven, integrity, the proper measures of human
behavior, and many more topics which, taken together, can be said to be
his life values. What is the totality of those opinions? Hawkeye is certainly
one of the most popular figures in American literature and may even more
popular outside of the university where the sophisticated opinions of professors
of English have little sway. What about Hawkeye makes him so popular? Is
it what he believes?

3. One of the standard appreciations for Cooper's literary treatments
of native Americans is that he "doubles" them meaning that he
simply divides them into good Indians and bad Indians. What are the criteria
for dividing Indians into good/bad? Is it just their political leanings
vis-a-vis English interests in the new country? Chingachgook and Uncas
take scalps just as the other Indians do. What's the operative morality
of the text which allows Cooper to so divide Indians?

4. Hawkeye at several points pokes fun at the shortcomings of book learning
and maximizes many opportunities to point out that book-learned behavior
would be inadequate to the task at hand. We've seen already in other texts
the dangers associated with reading--is this some algorithm of that attitude?
If so, what do you make of this permutation?

5. Having taught a course in the non-fiction novel a couple of times,
I'm interested in discussions about the borders or non-borders which separate
fiction/history. This text, more (?) than others we've read (even Cf. Fall
River?), takes care to locate action in specific recognizable situations
and takes care to footnote historical personages. What is Cooper's take
on the relationships between history and his own work. See especially page
180 whereat the stops the action to comment on historical reverberations
in the scene and then returns to what he calls the "humbler vocation."

6. What are we to make of Uncas's attraction to Cora (p 56--his impartial
ministrations to the sister and other places)? Given her background, what
sort of racial issues is Cooper raising (hinting at may be saying it better?).
Clearly crossing or the threat of crossing (man without a cross) is a refrain
here--I guess the question is simply, what are Cooper's attitude toward
race?

7. Just how good a writer is Cooper? I'd like to focus a bit on the
style of this writing; Cooper is generally now poked fun at for his lengthy,
ornate, yet inexact descriptions (even the introduction to this edition
does some of that). What's wrong with his style? How does it compare to
the styles of some of the other writers we have read? Are the accusations
bogus?